You can feel the uneasiness when this verse is read out from the pulpit. If you haven't heard it yet, it is probably because most preachers avoid it, fearing the backlash. At the risk of receiving criticism, I will attempt to explain this text to the best of my ability because I believe that it has the cure for most broken families and should not be avoided.
Firstly, it is important to understand how God sees both man and woman. In Genesis 1:27 we read " So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." From this it is clear that man and woman are created equally, none lesser than the other. St Paul is also in agreement with this when he says ".... there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." However, we must not confuse equality with similarity. With our plain sight we can see that men and women are different, physically and emotionally they have their own unique qualities. While we respect the equal dignity of both man and woman, we must also respect their unique capabilities.
The text which most people have a problem with is Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5 where St Paul gives a code of conduct for Christian households. Here, he is addressing pagan converts and encouraging them to leave behind their old ways and become imitators of Christ. Their previous life was full of sexual immortality. Abortions were carried out on a massive scale, so much so that their drains below their houses would be filled with bodies of unwanted children. Homosexuality and pedophilia were the norm and were also commended. Contraception was very famous and women were looked upon as nothing more than objects of pleasure. This is the life that St Paul was urging them to leave behind.
He begins his address to husbands and wives by saying something that would shock anyone in those days. In Ephesians 5:21 he says, " Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ". It was unheard off for a husband to submit to his wife. This sentence alone defeats all arguments that St Paul was a woman hater or was against women in any way. He is asking husbands and wives to imitate the divine family where the Father and Son, pour out themselves in love for one another.
He then addresses wives, telling them "Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior." When St Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands, he is telling them to put themselves under the mission of their husbands. And what is this mission of the husband? To imitate Christ in loving his wife as Christ loves the church and leading his family through the gates of heaven. Through her willful submission to him and his sacrifice for her, they help each other achieve a deeper level of holiness. A practical example of this would be a wife accepting the leadership of her husband and the husband bringing the family together to pray. If I had to provide an analogy, it would be a dance between a man and a woman, where the man leads and woman follows his lead. She is required to trust his leadership while he is required to support her firmly to prevent her from falling. If they both lead they won't go ahead and if there is no trust it can lead to a bad fall.
This verse is best explained in the words of Pope Pius XI "For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love." A body cannot function without a head, nor can it function without a heart, they are both mutually important although their function is different.
The world sees submission as inferiority and leadership as domination but that is far from the vision that St Paul has for the family. He speaks of submission that leads to sanctification. "Christ Jesus, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave." This in no way means robs the woman of her liberty or forces her to obey her husbands every command if it is against sound reason. But it simply suggest that she support her husband for the good of the family. In the same way the leadership which St Paul speaks of is not one of domination for in his address to husbands he says " husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, because we are member of his body."
One might still ask, why is the husband the head instead of the wife? It is mainly for practical purpose, as the wife takes the leading role in child bearing and must nurture the child, especially when in the womb, the husband is more free to take on the leadership role. A Christian household cannot function with two leaders as it would lead to a power struggle and could end in chaos.
Very often we see that one spouse may fail to fulfill his/her role and the responsibility might fall on the other spouse. Also in single parent households, one might have to fulfill both roles. Yet, we are given a divine framework to work towards. The least we can do is give it a try, trusting in God's design for the family. We have tried the framework advertised by the world today and it has failed miserably because it lacks structure. No country was ever run smoothly without a leader nor can an organisation function smoothly without a structure, so how can we then leave a family unit without any structure or leadership.
I would like to end with a reflection from the Wedding feast of Cana. Mary, the first Christian and Mother of the church, encouraged Jesus to begin his mission of salvation at Cana even when his hour had not yet come. Yet she tells the servants to do as he tells them, trusting her Son to do what was in everyone's best interest. In the same way a wife, encourages her husband to take on his mission of service towards the family and to lead them down the path of holiness.
Nicely explained
ReplyDelete